One more thing to read

If you haven’t read it already, please don’t miss Charlie Nathan’s article at American Thinker, entitled “My Generation’s Moral Recession.”  It’s a saddening piece about the moral vacuum that is so much a part of young life in America.  Charlie obviously doesn’t suffer from that problem, but he’s weighed down by the critical mass of his own generation.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Bill Smith

    Though I’m generally pleased at this young man’s piece, I am sad to see that the notion of moral equivalence infuses his thinking, as if he feels obligated to give equal value to communism, socialism, as well as Capitalism. No amount of morality can successfully operate fundamentally immoral systems like socialism, and communism. Son, that’s the same as giving the winners, and losers both the meaningless trophies you mention.

    Capitalism certainly can be, and has been perverted, but it is the best system ever for providing the greatest good, to the greatest number of people when operated by moral people. Not so, socialism, or communism. Do they not teach true history at Dobbs anymore?

  • Ymarsakar

    as if he feels obligated to give equal value to communism, socialism, as well as Capitalism.

    He knows his peers do and has chosen not to fight them on this score, for it would require re-education and divert from his true focus, morality.

    Of course, he has been trained in ethical philosophy and logical analysis by the Ancient Greeks. Few have and even fewer can explain why morality, why the standard that exists in America, is true and right for us all.

    Nihilism and moral relativism has been the tools that have reprogrammed and brainwashed Americans into voting for people like Obama. It cannot be erased simply through reading an article or talking about morality. Charles know this if only because he knows his peers.

    Do they not teach true history at Dobbs anymore?

    True history is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the proletariat, the slaves, and the dupes. Best to keep all the goodies with the enlightened Democrat leadership class.

  • Oldflyer

    Exactly Bill Smith.

    The closing thought in Charlie’s essay undercuts his whole argument for me. I was going to use the term “relativism”; moral equivalence works very well.

    I hate to say it, and maybe I misread, but after that final thought I look on his whole thesis as an argument for Atheism. The mantra of the Atheist now seems to be that we don’t need guidance in moral behavior; we are perfectly capable of devining for ourselves–for today. Tomorrow may be different.

    Hey, if it feels good; do it.

  • suek

    Here’s a good article on the reasons why capitalism is better than any other system.

    >>The mantra of the Atheist now seems to be that we don’t need guidance in moral behavior; we are perfectly capable of devining for ourselves–for today. Tomorrow may be different.>>

    Atheists _do_ seem to think that way. They don’t seem to realize that they can be “moral” because of the moral structure of our society, which is Judeo-Christian in foundation. They accept as “good” those things which have been defined as “good” by that society. Our society can tolerate atheists in low numbers, but if the efforts to “atheize” our society are successful, there will be no right or wrong – there will only be the law. And the law only succeeds in controlling society if it either has everybody watching everybody else, or has a means of watching everyone all the time. Otherwise, you only violate the law if the law can _prove_ that you violated the law. The order of our society depends on the effectiveness of individual morality – the success of each person’s conscience in requiring that that person obeys the “rules” which are not necessarily the “laws”.

    The basis of theism is that there is an authority outside ourselves who establishes an objective right and wrong. The basis of atheism is that we ourselves are the sole determinant of right and wrong. If we ourselves are the sole determinant of right and wrong, wrong disappears because we never do things we consider wrong. Everything we do can be justified in our own interest. Does anybody think that Hitler thought what he did was morally wrong? Kim Jong Il? Pol Pot? We don’t _do_ things we think are wrong – what we do is figure out why something we want is right. We move the line. Theism doesn’t allow the line to be moved – you can step over it, but it’s still there.

    Additionally, as someone somewhere has pointed out, there is no such thing as police protection. The police do not protect – they react after the fact…after the damage is done. We have an obligation to protect _ourselves_ – with the law to back us up. If the law doesn’t back us up in our efforts to protect ourselves from the unlawful, there _will_ be a backlash.

    I ran across an article yesterday…a market watch article. His prime interest in blogging is about market trading. The article focuses on the whole AIG thing, and the government’s role in it. His position seems to be that the government needs to get out of it except for places where laws were broken. His opinion is that laws _were_ broken – and I get the impression that he includes some members of Congress among those lawbreakers (though I could be imposing my own opinion on this) and if government doesn’t do what it _should_ do, then there _will_ be a failure of the system. I’ll try to find a link…in case anyone is short reading material today!!!

  • suek
  • Mike Devx

    suek, you’re a fount of optimism!

    But that second article link only reinforces what I’ve been bitterly complaining about for some time. To wit:

    From the information available in public reports I believe that AIG’s “rescue” is nothing more or less than a thinly-disguised looting operation for certain preferred banks both here and abroad, intended to improperly obtain the full value of credit default swaps when the underlying instrument has not (yet) defaulted. Since AIG does not have the money (nor will they if and when the instruments do default) the company is being used as a conduit to funnel taxpayer money to these creditors who would otherwise be forced to seek their redress for bets that went bad through the bankruptcy court, and in the process would almost certainly take a very singificant loss.

    What’s even worse is that AIG’s “installed” CEO, Liddy, was a director at Goldman Sachs before he took the helm of AIG, and Hank Paulson picked him for both roles!

    We are being robbed. And it is NOT just about Obama. It is about Bush, it is about Paulson. Technically, I think George Bush was blindsided – he had no idea what Paulson was about to do to him, especially as Paulson sidled over and began working with Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Dems to betray any hope of conservative opposition to this deliberate robbery. And there’s good ol’ George Bush, nodding along to Paulson’s tune, saying “I’ve abandoned everything associated with conservatism and the free market to go along with MY GOOD BUDDY HANK PAULSON! YEAH, BABY! Throw those damned House Republican no-good-niks under my Bush Bus!”

    Thank you, George. If only you’d taken good ol buddy Hank Paulson out behind the woodshed, and shot him instead.

  • Mike Devx

    Er, that’s a metaphorical “took him out behind the woodshed and shot him”.

    Wouldn’t want anyone to think a rabid dog needs to actually be shot, nor that I’m comparing Paulson to a rabid dog. No one else anywhere in government since 2000 had closer ties to Goldman Sachs… and he was up to his eyebrows in communications with China for years.

    Nothing to see here… move along… HEY! Octomommy, look at Octomommy! AIG bonuses, look THERE, look THERE! Pay no attention to the theiving monsters that have controlled Administration policy since 2004 and will continue controlling it for the foreseeable future. Republican… Democrat… doesn’t matter. Damn, the Octomommy story has no further legs. Quick, something new to distract the millions of stupid people!

  • suek

    >>suek, you’re a font of optimism!>>

    Now now…sarcasm will gain you nothing.

    Unless it’s funny…!

  • suek

    >>I think George Bush was blindsided..>>

    Was he? You know…I’m not sure anymore. The more I consider the idea of “One World Government”, the more I’m beginning to think that it’s in line with a modern Tower of Babel. Is it possible that there really is a group of very wealthy very powerful individuals who hope to push the world into this kind of thing over time? Is it possible that Bush and his father were among this group? I really don’t know. But we _do_ know that Bush was not a solid conservative in the traditional sense. We know he favored the North American Union with apparently a unified currency…
    I feel like I’m going a bit nuts, but maybe they’re really out there. If so, what then?

    Suppose _we_ were the ones who were blindsided?

    Check out this link – go to the comment section and go to shahab’s comment – the eighth. It’s very very long. It’s worth the time.

  • Mike Devx

    >> suek, you’re a fount of optimism!

    Ouch, suek, you’re right, that could be interpreted many ways! I meant it in a good way. When all the news is bad, all the messenger can bring is… bad news! Keep the good links coming!

    My original thought for the day: Take a look at what Obama and his Administration and the Dem Congress has done to us so far in only two months. Really dwell upon the scope of their attempts to transform this country.

    Then ask yourself: Suppose a true capitalist free-market Republican (I know, there doesn’t really seem to be one) had won the election with 52.8% of the vote. A strong believer in limited government, fiscal restraint, and a believer in 100% promoting individual responsibility, individual morality, individual freedom. And he or she had a reasonably solid conservative Congress behind him.

    Now suppose they enacted a conservative agenda that was just as broad in scope as what the Democrats are doing to us. We’re talking: Immediately propose plans to cut the size of all departments in government by 1/3. Cut taxes. Slash spending by 50% by (in addition to the 1/3 reduction), shutting down completely the Depts of Education, Energy, and four others. Replacing 50% of regulations with a streamlined smaller set of regulations that are 1/10 the size. Flat tax or fair tax with eliminations of many (yes even the beloved ones) deductions.

    That can give you an idea of the vast scope of what the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are doing to us. Yes, it is that vast. It is a revolution, a transformation that may even exceed FDR’s. It certainly exceeds LBJ. The more you hear about all the details of their agenda scattered/hidden in bill after bill…

    What with the financial shenanigans unrolling around us; corruption in Washington D.C. that appears to put any old Roman Senate corruption to shame; and this vast Statist agenda from the Dems rolling over us like a two-mile high tsunami… I find myself begging to the dark void all around me, to please, please, someone, wake me from this nightmare, please let this be a nightmare; wake me back to the real world.

  • Bill Smith

    Y: One trouble is that the schools have subtly taken a moral virtue — fairness — and mashed it together with a perversion of one of our founding principles: That all people are created EQUAL.

    Should all people be allowed to have, and express an opinion? Yes.

    But this gets morphed into the notion that all OPINIONS are of equal VALUE

    And that thought process — known as a knee-jerk in times past — gets you to the idea that socialism/communism and Capitalism should be afforded equal respect, just because somebody has them.

    And how could a kid at an elite prep school have such an idea? My guess is they’re not teaching true history — facts about communism and socialism.


    “…the efforts to “atheize” our society are successful, there will be no right or wrong…”

    Sure there will. What the atheist wants/needs will be “right” and everything else will be wrong. And, Number One WRONG will be telling them they are wrong. And, you can replace the word “atheist” with “state.” But, I do get what you are saying.

  • Ymarsakar

    Because of the guilt of the adults, they have transfered psychological imbalances to the children. They seek to medicate such problems out, of course, but the source of those problems aren’t the children, it is the adults.

    A warped society does not produce healthy children. Isn’t that what our beloved “community organizers” and “tribal village parenthood” advocates like Hillary, always say?

    The children aren’t really learning to treat others with respect or fairness. No, what the children are learning is that all power comes from the authorities and if you rebel against the authorities, the authorities will call in the police and bring down a world of hurt on you and your family. And so families bring lawyers and the schools become a battleground. A battleground uniquely suited for Democrat cruelty, manipulation, and subversion. Divide and conquer. Class warfare. IQ warfare. Education warfare. The Left loves war, because the Left loves making people suffer and rejoicing at their handiwork. Do you know how many secret, private, and public celebrations were held in the United States after the Fall of Saigon? It is most assuredly more than you could have imagined.

    Without trust in a community, without a cogent standard for teamwork, we have the jackals and the price gougers and the con men, the Democrats, ready to “get to work”. You want to see what a man made disaster is? Give Democrats and their Leftist ilk the power over people’s lives, any power at all.

    Of course the recent generations are narcissists. That has been their only defense against the psychotic policies of schoolboards, principles, and administrators. When your school has bullies, parents, lawyers, police, and teachers all fighting each other to worry about, you start to lose your empathy and start to look out for Numero Uno. There is no trust any more, if ever there was. And that is exactly how the Left likes it. Whenever you hold to the virtuous path and are punished for it because “that is unfair and disrespectful of those who are less confident and virtuous than you”, there is no incentive, and a great many decentives, to be aspire to ethical standards of conduct.

    This is the methodology by which adults are brainwashed and conditioned to betray secrets, oaths, or their own families (The Lives of Others). Children have no defense against such. They never did.

    The Left claims torture doesn’t work. If they actually believed, why then do they have great confidence in such organizations as the Rainbow Coalition in extorting money through psychological torture?

    The Left loves torture. They just don’t like it when it is used to help the innocent and punish the guilty. (Tookie, anyone)

  • Mike Devx

    The schools are also where primary indoctrination includes the following:
    moral relativism
    moral equivalency

    moral relativism: all cultures are equal

    Teacher: “Every culture is valuable and we must treat them all equally.”

    Johnny: “So, if Muslims in this country want Sharia law, and the swimming pools in my city have to be segregated by men at 6pm and women at 7pm, then that’s OK because we need to accommodate their culture? Minorities need to be respected.”

    Teacher, beaming: “Very GOOD, Johnny!”

    Johnny: “And also, so when a bunch of Christians in a Saudi Arabian city want freedom for their women to travel, and want to enjoy an evening in the swimming pool together, sipping a margarita, that’s OK, too, because their culture equally needs to be accommodated, right? Minorities need to be respected.”

    Teacher: “No, no, no, no.”

    Johnny: “But what’s the difference?”

    Teacher: “GO TO THE OFFICE!”

    moral equivalency: all actions are equal

    Teacher: “As leading Democrats have said, Guantanamo Bay is a Nazi camp, and anyone who agrees with Guantanamo Bay is a Nazi.”

    Johnny: “Teacher, how many millions have been killed in Guantanamo Bay?”

    Teacher: “Whaaaat? Back from the office already?”

    Johnny: “What was Abu Ghraib?”

    Teacher: “That was where American soldiers piled naked prisoners on top of each other, and utterly humiliated them, and even took pictures. Thus proving that the Americans are just as bad as Saddam Hussein. Just as bad.”

    Johnny: “Teacher, I thought Saddam Hussein, in that same prison, fed his prisoners into a metal shredder feet first. Slowly, too. I heard that many of them, screaming horribly, stayed conscious while their legs were fully fed into the shredder, for minutes, until their upper thighs were being shredded. Blood, gristle, bone flying everywhere. Their families were even forced to stand there and watch as their loved ones were fed into the shredder. Are you really saying that piling naked men on top of each other is exactly the same as feeding them into metal shredders?”



    One year later:
    Teacher: “Good morning, Johnny!”

    Johnny: “Morning… but not so good. America is evil. We’re really sick.”

    Teacher: “Very GOOD!” under her breath: “and another one down, and another one down, another one bites the dust!”

  • suek

    Years ago, McCalls was a women’s homemaking magazine. They also published 1 or 2 short stories a month. So one month they published a story about Johnny’s new teacher, and basically the story is how the new teacher quickly gets across the idea that there is no God. The negative response was so strong that they published a short article about 2 months later that apologized to those who misunderstood the lesson _they_ were trying to give, which was that beliefs that are taught at home can be undermined at school, and it was every parent’s responsibility to be aware of what was taught in school. (this was at the peak of the cold war, by the way). I thought it was an excellent story, and cut it out. Sadly, I’ve lost it somewhere along the line. The thing about it was that the teacher never said “Don’t believe in God” – but by telling the children to “pray to God for candy” – which of course didn’t appear – and then telling them to “pray to Our Leader for candy” – and they _did_ get candy because she gave it to them – she taught them that through human intervention asking Dear Leader for things brought those things to them.

    She was an excellent propagandist.

  • Bill Smith


    I remember that story. As I recall, the teacher had the children close their eyes when they prayed. When it was time to pray to Our Leader she quietly placed candy on each child’s desk while their eyes were closed.

    I also remember the Hungarian boy who came to live with a family in my town in 1956. He hid food in his bed, and refused to wear the brand new tennis shoes he was given, because he’d never had anything so wonderful, and could not conceive of even imagining that he might ever get another pair.

  • suek

    Wow, Bill!! You read that??? in McCalls????

    I’m not sure which impresses me more – your age or the fact that you read a story from a homemaker’s magazine like McCalls!! You must have been very eclectic even then!!

  • Bill Smith

    Heh heh, no, I’m pretty sure I read it in the Reader’s Digest which they used to use in schools.

    Oh! EcLECTIC! Thank you! I thought you said “elECTRIC!” (My hearing is getting really shocking in my old age.)